Jacqui Smith: It is precisely to avoid such effects that the directive is being put in place. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that the end-of-life vehicles (producer responsibility) regulations laid before the House in February are due to come into force today. They take into consideration what is known as the "own mark" approach, whereby companies take back the vehicles that they have produced. That restricts the sort of dumping that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and enables the recycling of vehicles to take place. I believe that it will be good for the environment, good for our communities and good for the customers of those vehicles because they will know where they should be returned to.

Mike O'Brien: It is enormously important that the coal industry has a long-term future, not least because the profitable colliery of Dawmill is in my constituency. We want to ensure that pits like Welbeck continue. Obviously, at Ellington, there were issues to do with geology and flooding. We engaged in discussions with UK Coal and sought further drainage at Ellington. UK Coal was unwilling to undertake such work. It is a privatised industry and that is a decision that it is entitled to take. We are continuing to work to keep open Welbeck. We are looking at applications for funding and we believe that once we have studied the details of the proposals from UK Coal, it is highly likely that we will continue to provide some funding.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have pressed the Administration and Congress to lift long-standing and unjustified restraints on technology transfer to British defence companies. As for the arms embargo on China, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spelt out not only our position on that, but the reasons for it. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman, as my right hon. Friend did, that we already have in place some of the strictest controls on the export of arms and dual-use technology in the world and they will continue to apply to China, as they do to every other country.

Hugh Bayley: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House just how important our trade relationship with the US is? It is by far our biggest trade partner. Since Labour came to power, our policies have hugely increased our trade balance with the US, from less than £500 million under the Conservatives to £14,500 million. The longer we keep our strong trade relationship with the US, the better. Nit-picking at the corners, as the Tories do, does not help one little bit.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an enormous export market in the United States, but that the United Kingdom is rapidly becoming a country of small and medium enterprises—not very large enterprises—and that it is those enterprises that need to access the American market? Does she agree that there are some very big hurdles and barriers for small and mediums? What is this partnership that was much vaunted between the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry that was supposed to be so helpful to small businesses? Is the Duke of York still employed there and what is he doing?

Gerry Sutcliffe: We always keep under review the need for more regulation, if that is appropriate, but, clearly, we do not want to put burdens on business. However, organisations such as Nominet already have powers and pursue complaints and prosecutions against companies that perpetrate such acts. We shall continue to review this, because the number of scams, and the number of types of scam, are increasing. We want to try to remain ahead of the game, but we always keep such matters under review.

David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend accept that other countries— particularly, Germany, Japan and the United States—have moved much further and faster than the United Kingdom in the development of solar photovoltaics? Does he also accept that continuity of support is essential if that embryonic industry is to grow strong in the United Kingdom? Is he still committed to the original target of between 70,000 and 100,000 solar photovoltaic roofs to be constructed by 2012?

Mike O'Brien: We have long-term commitments that we seek to maintain. Also, the budget for major PV programmes increased from £25 million to £31 million last September, and the budget for the clear skies programme increased from £10 million to £12.5 million, showing the Government's continued commitment. My hon. Friend is right to say that the industry needs long-term commitments because of the stage that it is at. We are prepared to make those commitments, but we need to need to review the way in which the funding is directed, and ensure that it is directed to the maximum benefit.

Julie Kirkbride: The simple fact is that no matter how exciting some of the new technologies for renewables are, they are still embryonic. The United Kingdom faces an energy crisis in the next 10 to 15 years, when the nuclear reactors are closed down and the 20 per cent. of UK energy that they presently supply is not made up in renewables. What is the Minister going to do to tackle the UK's energy problems without recommissioning nuclear reactors?

Nigel Evans: The Government talk about investment in renewables but they seem to be obsessed for some reason with wind turbines. The Minister knows that wind turbines work only to a third of their capacity and that when it is too windy they have to be switched off. Is it not about time that he looked more comprehensively at the energy suppliers in this country, and considered solar power as one of the more exciting possibilities, taking some of the subsidies away from wind turbines and putting them into solar power in order to secure a better future for everyone in this country?

Stephen O'Brien: Last week, the Secretary of State admitted that, under the Labour Government,
	"one of the biggest frustrations for everyone running a business today is the amount of regulation coming out of Europe."
	We all agree, therefore, that European regulation is a crushing threat, impeding the prospects of the engineering sector in the west midlands and of all parts of British business. Will the Minister now confess what proportion of the £8.9 billion-worth of extra regulation heaped on British business last year came directly from Europe, how much came from Ministers and officials gold-plating EU requirements and how much was dreamt up by the Labour Government themselves?

Stephen O'Brien: The complacency of that response cannot disguise the fact that more EU directives have been implemented under the Labour Government than was the case in the preceding quarter-century of our membership. Engineers and manufacturers know exactly who is to blame for the ballooning burden of regulation, which is now heading towards a staggering £40 billion.
	Another key concern of west midlands engineers is skills. The most recent study by the Engineering Employers Federation on manufacturing productivity compares the UK with France and Germany, and shows that only UK managers rated the skills available to them as having a negative impact on their attempts to improve productivity. What urgent measures are the Government taking to abolish the inefficient Learning and Skills Council and to create a scheme of vocational grants, with funding following the students so that young people in the west midlands and the rest of the United Kingdom receive the skills training that employers demand and which the Conservatives have promised?

Sandra Gidley: The date of 8 March is international women's day, and in recent years the Government have generously given a significant amount of time to have a debate on women's issues. That has not happened this year, which I find strange in the light of the apparent wooing for the women's vote. Why has no Government time been devoted to this important subject this year?

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity, and I am sure the whole House, to put on record our acknowledgement that Peter Benenson, in founding Amnesty, lit a torch for freedom that has continued to burn brightly and has held every Government in the world, including our own, accountable for any potential human rights abuses.
	As for Burma, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an odious junta. The sooner that it can be brought down and replaced by a democratic, civilised Government, the better for the Burmese people. The treatment of the three individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman refers is completely intolerable, but, unfortunately, in line with the junta's behaviour. As well their treatment, we are aware of the long-standing oppression of Aung San Suu Kyi, who should in my opinion, subject to the views of the Burmese people, be the true leader of Burma.

Roy Beggs: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate as soon as possible to enable the House to end the perceived discrimination by Government against parents in Northern Ireland who wish to have their children educated in grammar schools, by enabling those parents to exercise the same rights that parents enjoy in England, who by local referendum can choose to retain their local grammar school, and also by enabling the House to prevent discrimination against the state sector—mainly Protestant children in our schools—in the form of proposals recently, which the Government admit will reduce funding to the state sector by £3 per pupil annually and increase funding to maintained sector children—who are mainly Roman Catholic—by £5 per pupil annually? Surely the Leader of the House and the House would uphold the need for abandoning and preventing discrimination at all levels.

Peter Hain: It is our intention to have the Identity Cards Bill on the statute book as soon as we can. That will depend on the Opposition's response. It remains to be seen whether the Conservatives will back this common-sense measure, which is widely supported by about 80 per cent. of the population. That applies to the Liberal Democrats as well. Will they seek to block the Bill? It will be an interesting challenge for the Opposition, and members of the public will be watching very closely to see who is on their side in the fight against terrorism and illegal immigration and in favour of improving the security of legitimate British citizens.
	On the European Union Bill, we want to proceed as soon as an opportunity arises. We want to get it through and we will proceed when we can.

Eric Forth: Prime Minister's porkies.
	Did the Leader of the House notice that the Prime Minister said how delighted he would be if we spent "the next few months" arguing about the national health service? Did the Leader of the House take that as a hint, or even a definitive statement, from the Prime Minister that there is no general election in the offing and that we will still be here debating these important matters? Does the right hon. Gentleman have the Prime Minister's confidence or does he read into the Prime Minister's words, as I do, that we can all go off for our Easter break in a relaxed mood?

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the speculation about the possibility of an early dissolution and, in particular, provide information on the likely progress of the Gambling Bill? In my constituency two casino developers, MGM and Sun International, have expressed interest in developing regional casinos which would be at the heart of major regeneration plans for the old industrial areas of the Lower Don valley. Can he reassure us that the Gambling Bill will not be lost? That would significantly delay that major regeneration, which has widespread public support in my constituency.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Disapplication of section 101 of the 1974 Act

Chris Bryant: I think that the "sophistimicated" market is a Bushism—but I am sure that everyone in the Chamber agrees that exploitation needs to be tackled. We want to try to find the right means to prevent exploitation, whether of individuals or of communities, including the Rhondda, which I represent.
	I do not accept the argument that a maximum interest rate would make it impossible for poor people to gain access to financial services. Some loans should not be made, because people cannot afford them. I accept that most financial services organisations want to ensure that they do not lend money to people who cannot afford a loan, because they might not get the money back. However, if that results in unsecured loans being turned into loans secured on people's homes we should put a stop to that corrupt exploitation.
	I find some aspects of new clause 2 problematic. The new concept of widespread consumer detriment proposed by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr may well undermine the provisions at the heart of the Bill to tackle unfair relationships. Courts may decide to strike down an agreement that someone has entered into for all sorts of reasons, but they cannot do so because the interest rate is too high, as there is provision to tackle that elsewhere in the Bill. That is detrimental to the cause of preventing exploitation, so I hope that the Minister will give some further explanation. He is waggling his head as he did in Committee—but perhaps he will do it later. High or excessive interest rates and the charges that often ensue for late payment are exploitative in themselves, and should be considered by the court as reasons for characterising an agreement entered into by a consumer as an unfair relationship and striking it down. If that is the case, we should not support the new clause, as it would contradict the purposes that we are trying to achieve.
	I fear that if the Government used the powers afforded by the new clause and set a maximum interest rate, that rate might be considered acceptable and could lead to a steady sliding up of interest rates. I hope, however, that the Bill will achieve a steady sliding down of interest rates. Once a court strikes down an agreement because the interest rate is excessive and the relationship is unfair, I am sure that there will be a dramatic change in higher interest rates. My contribution has not been as short as I intended, which is often the case. I wholeheartedly support the aims of new clauses 2 and 4, but I am not sure that they would help us to achieve the aims that we are trying to achieve.

Malcolm Bruce: I think that it is, and that is a point of difference. I might mention the fact that I have grave reservations about the Financial Services Authority, the establishment of which I supported and was somewhat involved in, in the House. Far from protecting consumers, it is often used as cover for saying that things are all right. I take the point that the Sunday Mirror and the "debt on our doorstep" campaign have raised, which is that the maximum charge on plastic should be no more than 25 per cent. more than the base rate—so currently 30 per cent.—and that the maximum for doorstep lending should be 80 per cent.
	The problem with that is that doorstep lending might be running at 40 per cent. or 50 per cent., which would make it much easier for people to say, "Well, 80 per cent. is okay." That is a genuine concern. We are not disagreeing about the outcome, but we are offering a different way of achieving the same result. Our proposal is more dynamic and flexible, and would mean that the OFT could give notice as the market developed and say what it regarded as excessive, at a given time and for a particular product.

Malcolm Bruce: I must confess that my proposals do not address that, although the issue is related to a comment that I made in an intervention on the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). I have reservations about the OFT. We need to ask, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?" Who ensures that the OFT is trading or operating fairly? I take the point that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) made and I think that mechanisms are necessary. For instance, the Treasury Committee has done a good job and there may be other mechanisms. All I have done with my new clauses is try to give direction to the OFT, so that it does its job more effectively than it has in the past.
	My point, which I hope I have explained clearly, is that I agree that there ought to be a recognition of what are excessive and extortionate interest rates at any given time, and that the unfairness test can be applied to them. However, the only point of disagreement is on quoting a particular rate in the Bill, which denies flexibility and judgment over time, given the development of the market and different products.

Adam Price: I thank the Minister for his response. We are calling for transparency in the industry, and the way in which he has taken the Bill through the Commons has been open, transparent and fair.
	I shall respond briefly to some of the points that have been made in this interesting debate. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and others have asked whether the maximum rate would effectively become the going rate, which is the one argument that the Policis report, of which I have been very critical, knocked down. The report states that although many within the UK industry have made that case, no evidence exists to support it from the countries in which a maximum rate has been set.
	Another argument is that a cap could cause some lenders to move out of the market altogether, leaving a gap in the marketplace, which might force some people into the arms of illegitimate lenders—and to be fair, that argument holds some truth. The key issue is where one sets the cap. I do not claim to be an expert, but I have been told that some evidence suggests that the cap was set at too low a rate in the inefficient financial markets in some American states, which caused some of the problems that have been mentioned. The European experience, however, has been better.
	I have referred to my criticisms of the Policis report, which we do not need to examine in great detail, but I know that Professor Reifner has said that the report's specific conclusions in relation to Germany were absolutely incorrect, and he has provided the Department with evidence that proves that point. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has seen a copy of the report, but the Sparkassen claim that the report is wrong, too. The concerns about the report must be addressed.
	I welcome the Minister's remarks. Both sides of the discussion have legitimate points to make, and both share the same ultimate objective. It is excellent that we can continue this dialogue by leaving the door open and that the Minister is interested in hearing and seeing independent evidence.
	One interesting question concerns the interrelationship between a maximum rate and an unfairness test. I am not a lawyer or parliamentary draftsman, so I cannot answer that question definitively. We used the phrase, "widespread consumer detriment" to avoid confusion around the unfairness test. We used another form of words to avoid directly influencing decisions on the definition of unfairness, but I accept that that matter must be thought through. I point to the example of the South African Department of Trade and Industry, which has introduced consumer credit legislation that performs both of those functions at the same time. The legislation introduced a cap on maximum charges as well as a new test of reckless lending. The South African example shows that it is possible to have both an unfairness test and a maximum rate. Although the details may be different, the principle of two mechanisms is clear in the South African legislation, and I cannot see why it is not possible to combine two such mechanisms in this Bill.
	Although greater clarity on interest rate charges and recourse to the courts will be useful to many consumers, I fear that the poorest consumers will not necessarily be able to avail themselves of either legal action or information and advice, which is why my party remains of the view that intervention by the Government in the form of a maximum rate is desirable to protect the most vulnerable.

Malcolm Bruce: I thank the Minister for moving the amendment. There was clearly an anomaly in that, for historical reasons, the situations in Scotland and England differed. The Consumer Council has made representations to that effect. Clearly, accessibility will be made easier and cheaper than it was under the old unnecessary requirement. People can still use a solicitor or other professional if they wish, but they will be able to make their own choice about how to make representations, and that is very welcome. I am grateful to the Government for bringing Scotland into line.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 8
	Amendment No. 22, in page 63, line 2 [Schedule 3], leave out paragraphs 14 and 15 and insert—
	'14 The court shall not make an order under section 140B of the 1974 Act in connection with a credit agreement made before the commencement of section 20 of this Act.
	15 The repeal by this Act of sections 137 to 140 of the 1974 Act shall not affect the court's power to reopen an existing agreement under those sections.'.

Malcolm Bruce: Yes, but there would be a reasonableness test. I agree with what I anticipate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) would say at this point. I want flexibility and choice in the marketplace. I am certainly not against special offers or inducements. A genuine offer of 0 per cent. interest for six months is a valuable commodity, provided that the price of a product is fair. If a person is buying a car for a given price and has one offer involving paying 0 per cent. interest for six months and another offer that would lead to charges immediately, one deal is incontrovertibly better than the other. I would not want to do anything to close such options. All I am asking is for the providers of credit to take reasonable steps to ascertain people's circumstances, thus protecting them from their lack of responsibility or self-control. I qualify that requirement with the words "reasonably" and "inadequacy", which are used in the amendment.
	I think that the Minister will acknowledge that the expansion of such credit and the increase in bankruptcies, default and personal debt has much to do with the fact that it is excessively easy to access unsolicited credit. Such credit was not available 30 years ago. Credit was hard to come by then, not least because we had credit squeezes when the Government made things more difficult. I do not think that any of us want to go back to those days, but we want a little discipline. Frankly, the providers of credit are the people best able to achieve that, rather than the Government or a third-party regulator. We simply require a reasonable test of how people should pay for credit. People should also receive advice on the products that they require. Why should they pay credit card interest rates when they could pay bank loan rates? It is distasteful that banks encourage their own customers to take credit on credit cards when they could offer cheaper credit through other products.
	I imagine that the Minister will say that my amendment would have the disadvantage of qualifying the unfairness test, as he has said about other amendments. I understand that, but I hope that he accepts that my amendment is drafted in the spirit of many of the findings of the Treasury Committee. The Committee is not hostile to the expansion of credit or the availability, variety or flexibility of products, but it is worried that many people find themselves in serious financial distress because credit is too easily available and the providers of it do not determine responsibly whether people can afford it. They do that because they assume that they will get their money back from most people by using ruthless methods and making people's lives a misery, so they decide that the odd default will not matter given that the vast majority of people will struggle, but pay. However, for such people, the glamorous offer of credit that was supposed to enhance their quality of life leads to long-term misery. Surely we do not wish to encourage such a credit regime.

Laurence Robertson: I want to deal mainly with amendment No. 22, which relates to retrospection, but I also want to add a few thoughts about our debate on amendment No. 21, which was ably moved by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). He touched on many important issues and I agree that it is far too easy for people to take out credit these days.
	The hon. Member for Gordon rightly drew attention to the fact that when a £150,000 mortgage is applied for, every nook and cranny will, quite rightly, be examined. It is a major commitment on behalf of the lender, as well as the borrower, which is why such an application is so seriously looked into. Unfortunately, that does not happen when someone wants to borrow just £3,000. I know from private conversations that lenders do not really look into the proposal too seriously. If they lost one or two lots of £3,000 here and there, they would still be making enough out of the interest on the many other lots of £3,000 for it not to matter that much. They tend not to bother too much about applications for relatively small amounts. The problem is, of course, that people can borrow £3,000 from this company, another £3,000 from that company, and so forth. One lot of £3,000 is not very much, but when they are all added together, it could represent a significant debt for an individual.
	I well understand how easy it is for people to get into great difficulty. While we were debating the Bill in Committee, I recall hearing a report on the "Today" programme—a very sad report that featured a widow whose husband had committed suicide because he had got into terrible debt as a result of having 22 credit cards. That really set the tone of debate in Committee. Tragic though it was, the radio programme did a useful service for our considerations, but we all wished that the tragedy had not happened in the first place.
	I was concerned about the issue and tabled an amendment on data sharing. Unfortunately, it was not selected, because it would have required many changes to the Data Protection Act 1998, which we are not considering; we are amending the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In it I sought to make it easier for lenders to share information on potential debtors. The credit reference agency carries many details on people who have defaulted or been late with payments or who have county court judgments. That is fine, but often they do not share information on how many credit cards people have or what their level of income is. That is where the problem begins because it is so easy to take out many credit cards.
	I do not wish to add to the anecdotes, but over Christmas I had such an experience. I bought several items from Marks and Spencer. I was not paying much attention to what I was doing. It was hot in the store and I just wanted to get out and get home. I ended up signing up to what I thought was just a points card but turned out to be a MasterCard, with which I could instantly spend up to £7,500 anywhere in the country. I did not ask for that or want it. That is how easy it is to take out a credit card. The minimum number of checks was done. Presumably a credit check was carried out, but the store had no idea whether I had other credit cards and no proof of my income. I am probably reasonably safe with that credit card, but many people are not. In my amendment I wanted to enable lenders to have access to information in that situation.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister, but I do not entirely accept that putting something on the face of the Bill means that something is left out. I suppose that by definition it is, but it is possible to put on the face of the Bill some examples of what the courts might want to give credence to. That does not mean that the courts cannot look at other things as well. Many Acts of Parliament contain clauses that end by saying, "and the Secretary of State shall do whatever else he thinks fit"—I paraphrase, but I think we all recognise that such a provision appears in very many Acts of Parliament. I think it is called a Henry VIII clause or something like that. So I do not accept that stating some examples of what the court should take into account means that it cannot take into account other things.
	To summarise, I stress that we welcome the change from extortionate to unfair. We accept that some retrospection is necessary—perhaps even desirable—in this type of legislation, but we do regret the lack of detail as regards what constitutes an unfair agreement. We also regret the fact that retrospective legislation is effectively being introduced by the courts, and possibly the OFT and Ministers, but not Parliament. That is the point. It is, as I said in Committee, coining a phrase, "a double whammy". It is retrospective legislation, introduced other than by Parliament. That cannot be the right way of carrying out what is generally appropriate legislation, and therefore I would ask the Minister to reconsider his approach in this respect.

Malcolm Bruce: I appreciate the Minister's response and the terms in which it was couched. I did not say so when I introduced it, but I regard the amendment as probing. In fact, I agree completely with him about the unfairness test and the desire not to qualify it. On the other hand, I believe that when passing a Bill that updates 30-year-old legislation, it is important to have a proper debate about how it should be applied. In our debates, we are trying to give the authorities that are to implement the legislation some idea of our expectations regarding its application. The Minister is in a particular position, in that what he says carries some judicial force, whereas what the rest of us say has no consequence, but I am optimistic enough—some might say na-ve enough—to believe that the authorities that apply the legislation in such a specialist area will read the Committee proceedings and our debates to inform themselves about the thrust of what we are trying to achieve.
	Without putting words in his mouth, I think that the Minister has, in essence, gone as close as he can—without restricting the test's application—to stating the Government's view that consideration of the unfairness test should take on board the issues that have been raised. He knows that my colleagues and I favour the principle of applying the duty to trade fairly, or the duty not to trade unfairly, much more widely. In the present context, I agree with him: there is no point in having a test and then surrounding it with qualifications.

Chris Bryant: I congratulate the Government on an important Bill. From my constituency I know—and others in the House will feel the same—that all too many families and individuals have been caught in a vicious cycle of debt that has made ordinary family life impossible. Sometimes, that may be their own fault, and sometimes there are feckless buyers and borrowers. However, in many instances the consumer credit industry has been reckless in the way in which it affords loans and hands out credit cards, making it all too tempting for people to run up debts that they cannot afford and that the credit card companies and loan providers did not know whether they could afford.
	I am grateful to the Government for bringing forward the Bill and to the Minister for the way in which he has handled it. I also thank him for listening to much of our debate in Committee. Although we have not been able to tempt him down the road of being explicit about what he understands to be an unfair relationship, he has none the less made it fairly clear that he hopes that the law will be used robustly and that we will thus row back from the vicious cycle of more loans and debts that are doled out irresponsibly.
	After listening to the speech made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), I felt that he had not been kept well abreast of what was debated in Committee—perhaps he could have listened more carefully to his colleague, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). He inveighed against the Government, albeit in his usual charming way, by saying that unfair relationships are still too vague under the Bill, but he missed the point that the Minister tried to make. If we were to make the provisions too precise, there would be the danger that we would not row back from the culture of over-indebtedness that has grown up over the past 30 years.
	The hon. Member for Eddisbury said that the Bill had been hurried through the House. The programme motion allowed for eight Committee sittings, but we needed only four to provide absolutely adequate scrutiny of the Bill. We had a full exploration of many important issues, so his comments were rather unfair. However, I think that it should be hurried through the next part of its passage so that it will arrive on the statute book.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman was present for all of our Committee sittings, but he cannot have listened to our proceedings carefully because we had a substantial discussion about that matter. We debated several amendments that I tabled.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman did table amendments and there was a great deal of debate. However, I would not say that all the points that were raised and debated will be dealt with by the measure to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The problem is addressed only partially. People are still worried about the aggressive direct marketing of debt, especially to the most vulnerable people in society.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I undertake to do that, but my hon. Friend has made the point and he knows that the OFT is regulated. It has to produce an annual report and it has regular meetings with the Secretary of State and myself, and clearly we can raise these issues at those meetings. It was Parliament that decided to give powers to the OFT, through the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Competition Act 1998, and I hope that hon. Members will respect that.
	The Bill is a vital piece of legislation and I hope that the other place will recognise that. It is true that there can never be unconditional Opposition support for Bills, but I think it is agreed that this has not been treated as a party political Bill, perhaps with the exception of the contribution by the hon. Member for Eddisbury, for understandable reasons. It has been generally a matter of consensus.

Gerry Sutcliffe: In the same spirit, I will try to clarify the situation.
	I do not want to detain the House, which has not even divided on this legislation. I am grateful for the amount of work that has been done by the Bill team and all those who have been involved. It is important that the House of Lords recognises the spirit of consensus in this place and bears that in mind when it addresses the issues that we have raised. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the Town and Country Planning (Temporary Stop Notice) (England) Regulations 2005, (S.I., 2005, No. 206), dated 3rd February 2005, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]